When the 66th General Assembly of the United Nations convened in New York City in mid-September, those striving to get attention for specific agendas presented their causes at satellite conferences around Manhattan.

Members of The Elders, a contingent of independent global leaders focusing on “peace and human rights,” made appearances at the Clinton Global Initiative and the Mashable Social Good Summit. Their focus: to bring awareness to the “neglected” topic of child marriage through the ‘Girls Not Brides’ platform. The campaign dictum is, “Let girls be girls and not brides.”

Working to bring together non-governmental agencies from around the world, Girls Not Brides is confronting a practice that prohibits 10 million girls—annually—of the right to an education, health, and security.

The stats are overwhelming.  On a daily basis, twenty-five thousand girls are married before they reach the age of eighteen. To grasp the numbers in real time, that is the equivalent of nineteen girls being married without their consent every minute.

According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights drawn up in 1948, a “marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.”

Child marriage occurs worldwide. It affects 46 percent of underage girls in Sub-Sahara Africa; 38 percent in South Asia; 2 percent in the Caribbean and Latin America; 18 percent in North Africa and the Middle East.

The highest rate, 75 percent, is evident in Niger. More than a third of child brides inhabit India. Some groups in Europe and North America engage in the “custom” as well.

A child is defined as being any human being below the age of eighteen in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child [CRC Article 1].

For girls who are wed before they turn eighteen years old, there are health concerns with major ramifications. They are at a far higher risk of fistula and other pregnancy related injuries.

Those under fifteen years of age are five times more likely to die in childbirth than young women in their twenties. The number drops slightly, to twice as likely, for girls between fifteen to nineteen years old.

During June 2011 travels to Ethiopian communities affected by child marriage with the 'Towards an end to child marriage' campaign Mary Robinson (of The Elders) asks a young woman what she remembers about her wedding day. She replies, "It was the day I left school." Image: Ashenafi Tibebe/The Elders

Child brides face greater odds of contracting HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, because they cannot advocate for safe sex practices. When they give birth, as opposed to mothers who are over nineteen years old, their offspring are 60 percent more likely to die before they reach their first birthday.

Child brides are also prone to be victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse. Intrinsically intertwined with issues surrounding gender equality, family planning and maternal health, child marriage is dually driven by tradition and poverty.

One ripple effect has caused six of the eight 2015 Millennium Development Goals to be thwarted as child brides are forced to terminate their schooling. Stymied educational opportunities result in limited economic options without possibility of breaking the continuous rounds of poverty.

To learn more about The Elders role in this initiative, I sat down with human rights advocate and “Elder” Mary Robinson, who served as the first woman President of Ireland (1990-1997) before becoming the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (1997-2002).

She spoke at length about what her past experiences bring to the table. Robinson also delved into the backstory of how The Elders were started by Nelson Mandela.

The purpose was to band together a group of accomplished people who could bring their insights to the front to help with global conflict resolution. Engaging “courageous and innovative” local people on the ground “who know best what is transpiring,” Robinson outlined how The Elders have been able to form global alliances.

Starting with a strong commitment to champion the empowerment of girls and women, they recognized that the topic of child marriage needed “moral leadership.”

The Elders knew they had to intervene on behalf of girls worldwide despite the sensitivity of the problem. These girls can, if allowed, become potential agents of change.

To do this Robinson understood that a push had to be made to win the hearts and minds of those who have positions as tribal leaders to individual women. Imposing a point of view solely from the top down was not going to work.

There had to be a strong grassroots effort. Social institutions had to be addressed by facilitating a community dialogue, particularly in rural conservative populations where there is a strong fear of ostracism.

A major piece of the puzzle included bringing men into the conversation to change the thinking on child marriage.

“It’s all part of the same issue. The role in the home is not as important,” says Robinson. “The country girl in the village has no voice. She knows from the adult that she is not as important as her brother.”

Southern Sudan refugee girls who have been displaced by conflict in the region often face the prospects of child marriage as the only option available to them. Yambio, Sudan Sept 2009. Image: Tim McKulka/UNmultimedia

Robinson is well versed in confronting concerns that inhabit unpopular and uncomfortable spheres. Elected at the age of twenty-five to the Irish Senate—when Catholicism dominated the mores—her first goal was tackling the legislative legalization of contraceptives. (At that time, married women in Ireland had no birth control rights.)

“I completely underestimated the reaction. I was denounced from pulpits,” Robinson told me. The reason? She was addressing “deeper cultural issues.” From challenging the “cultural norm,” she learned that “you need a lot of patience and understanding.”

“If we don’t promote education for girls, we won’t get to the millennium goals,” said Robinson as she circled back to the relationship of women and tradition—and the “role of religion” when it is abused and distorted to subjugate women. “Girls are losing hope for the future,” she added.

Investing in girls can change perceptions as they are valued beyond their ability to be laborers, producers of children, or second-class citizens. Even in countries where there is legislation in place, such as Ethiopia, the reality does not match the law. The average age of a girl bride is twelve.

“We need to scale up,” Robinson stated resolutely. “Child marriage is not adequately discussed.  It’s a travesty for girls and their human rights…an unacceptable practice.”

However, she optimistically points out how “practices can be changed,” underscoring her belief that child marriage can be “ended in one generation.”

At the Mashable Social Good Summit, where Robinson shared the stage with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, she had the ear of an audience dialed in to the power of social media. She understands how the value of digital tools can be a “highly influential way to have a conversation about an issue that is way underestimated.”

With a Twitter handle and a website set up linking to “What Can I Do?”—crowdsourcing awareness and activism on behalf of child marriage was launched.

“It’s about the oxygen of recognition and breaking the cycle,” Robinson concluded. Before she stood up to leave she added, “It’s important that we have the opportunity to advocate.”
________

UNICEF Radio: Young Journalist Reports on Child Marriage (8:24 min) July 2009:

After he witnessed a girl friend leave school at an early age fourteen year old Alfred Malish of Juba, in Southern Sudan, wanted to do something to bring attention to the plight of girls who become child brides. Listen to Malish interview girls in the region about their feelings and experiences as child brides >>>

Podcast: Play in new window

_______________________________________________________________________

“Great change can happen within a single generation. I know this to be true,” says Desmond Tutu. Child marriage robs 10 million girls a year of their childhood. A harmful traditional practice, child marriage denies girls their rights to health, education and security. In this new video from Girls Not Brides¸Graça Machel, Mary Robinson and Desmond Tutu of The Elders call on people around the world to action: to end child marriage in a single generation. “How can you reduce poverty when child marriage perpetuates poverty?” Mary Robinson outlines. “People may say it is tradition. It cannot change. But I know it is not true. Traditions can change because they are made by people,” says Graça Machel. This 4:07 min video is a September 2011 production by The Elders at www.girlsnotbrides.org

This piece originally appeared at the Women’s News Network, and is cross-posted with permission.  Freelance reporter and WNN staff commentator, Marcia G. Yerman, is based in New York City. Yerman writes profiles, interviews, essays, and articles focusing on women’s issues, human trafficking, women’s health, human rights, and culture.  She seeks out under-the-radar stories that aren’t getting coverage in the mainstream media. Her work has been published by AlterNet, RH Reality Check, Women Make News, The Huffington Post and The Women’s Media Center. Yerman is co-founder of cultureID, an online community dedicated to a nexus of culture and activism.

©Jason Laure, 1969/courtesy of HBO

Gloria Steinem has frequently spoken about the importance of sharing stories, using the imagery of communicating oral narratives around an ancient campfire. She has done that with her own personal history in the HBO documentary, Gloria: In Her Own Words.  Responding to questions asked by director Peter Kunhardt and co-producer Sheila Nevins, Steinem has added depth to readily accessible facts by opening up about the darker corners of her emotional life.

Two juxtaposed Glorias emerge.  One evolves from a brunette young woman who came to New York City via Smith College.  (Early on, Steinem had determined that she would get out of Toledo, Ohio—even if it had to be on the winged feet of her tap dancing prowess.) The other is a woman who has lived seven decades, delved into the journey of self-knowledge, and come up with the hindsights that the passage of time affords.

Repeatedly referenced as a “feminist icon,” Steinem often functions as a blank slate upon which others imprint their own anxieties, appreciation, disapproval or angry resentments.  In a society that habitually discards its most prominent contributors when they are deemed no longer relevant, Steinem radiates resilience. Functioning as a stand-in Rorschach test for all the attributes and shortcomings of the feminist movement, her best armor has been an acute sense of humor.

I saw the documentary first on a preview DVD, and then at the Women’s Media Center screening at the HBO building.  The 120-seat theater was filled with women (and a handful of men) representing a continuum of ages and a modicum of diversity.  As Steinem quipped when she appeared to answer audience questions—fresh from a taping with Stephen Colbert, “For a lot of people in this room, it’s a home movie.”  Archival footage of the 1972 Democratic convention (where one third of the delegates were women) and the march in Manhattan down Fifth Avenue gained a breadth of scope on the larger screen.  The experience of hearing in unison laughter when a 1960s broadcaster intoned, “Women have a problem with concentration,” lent a feeling of community.  Yet Steinem’s private revelations were more intimate when viewed via television’s smaller scale.

Throughout the film, a window into the burgeoning women’s movement runs parallel to the storyline about the girl born in the 1930s who described her awareness as, “I’m not sure if I knew what feminism was.  I thought if I was having difficulty, it was my own personal fault.”

Pursuing a career as a freelance journalist, Steinem was continually assigned features on food, beauty, and babies despite her interest in political topics.  “The low point,” she said, “was writing a piece on textured stockings.” Friday afternoon propositions by the boss were not uncommon.  Steinem notes of this time, “There was no word for sexual harassment.  It was just called life.”

In 1963, Steinem got what she called “the bunny assignment,” to do an undercover report about employment conditions at the “glamorous” Playboy Club. What was written as an exposé of “grinding work in three-inch heels” ended up creating new problems of credibility for Steinem’s writing—as she got stamped with the “unserious” label.

By the time Steinem hit her 30s, she realized that she wasn’t the only woman having problems. She put it concisely, “I wasn’t crazy, the system was crazy.”  Her “aha” moment came in 1969, when she was covering a story about an abortion hearing for New York Magazine. For Steinem, “That was the big click.”  At 22, she had an abortion and never told anybody. The black and white sequence of the meeting illustrates irate women speaking up and refusing to be silenced.  It is evident how the energy and dissension in the room telegraphed a message to Steinem that she was now ready to decode.  She observed, “I began to understand that my experience was an almost universal female experience.”

A montage of top male news anchors delivering reports in 1970 about the new “women’s liberation movement,” serves as a mordant backdrop to Steinem discussing her frustration about not being able to get her work published.  It pushed her to seek a different venue to get the word out.  She moved into speaking publicly, embarking on a national tour in partnership with Dorothy Pitman Hughes.

By then, Steinem had evolved into the “Gloria persona.”  Explaining the genesis, she said. “I used the aviator glasses to hide behind.”  The blonde streaks at the front of her long hair owed their origins to Audrey Hepburn’s character Holly Golightly in Breakfast at Tiffany’s–and Steinem’s appreciation for Golightly’s determination not to lose her freedom in a relationship based on “belonging to another person.”

The recognition that there was no place for women to read content uncontrolled by men was Steinem’s impetus for co-founding Ms.magazine.  Feminism hadn’t been faring well in the media, though as Steinem slyly pointed out, “Hostility is a step forward from ridicule.”  Harry Reasoner pronounced the periodical’s mission as “sad.”  The number of issues printed was supposed to last on the newsstands for three months.  They sold out in a week.  Seven months later, Ms. was in the black. For Steinem, making a point of using her “anger constructively” had paid off well.

Despite what appeared to be a successful and glamorous life, Steinem was dogged by criticism—from outside the movement and from within. “A woman who aspires to be something is a bitch,” she said.  Both lauded and excoriated for her appearance, Steinem stated, “I work really hard, and then it’s attributed to looks.  That’s really painful.”  Esquire magazine ran a story (with an accompanying comic strip) portraying Steinem in such a negative light that she characterized it as “cruel.”  Some of the sniping, bubbling just below the surface, came from other contributors to feminism who resented the limelight coalescing around Steinem.  The most prominent conflict played out with Betty Friedan, author of the groundbreaking The Feminine Mystique. Steinem said of Friedan, “She considered herself the owner of the movement.”  Looking to expand feminist alliances with other constituencies marginalized by traditional hierarchies, Steinem forged friendships with women who shared her sensibilities—such as Bella Abzugand Flo Kennedy. Qualifying Friedan’s approach, Steinem elucidated, “She didn’t identify down, she identified up.”

In 1977, The National Women’s Conference took place in Houston, Texas. Steinem refers to it as a major highlight of her career.  First Ladies Ford, Johnson, and Carter were present. The 20,000 women in attendance had different objectives for the proposed National Plan of Action, twenty-six resolutions that were put to a collective vote.  Ultimately, abortion and lesbian rights—along with support for the Equal Rights Amendment—were included in the Plan submitted to President Carter in 1978.  Steinem worked non-stop to promote her ideological agenda, pushing herself relentlessly.

Viewers get an unguarded glimpse of Steinem’s core in the segments where she addresses her dysfunctional upbringing.  She describes her father as a “charming” but “totally irresponsible man,” and tells how her mother, a “pioneer in journalism who couldn’t do it all,” was debilitated by what was “at that time called a nervous breakdown.”  In a childhood that Steinem depicts as scary and depressing, she became a caretaker to a mother who couldn’t function. When her father departed, they were a household of two women, enveloped by the sound of a persistently playing radio.  Steinem learned to rely on the defense mechanism of “detachment.”  She came to understand, in her later adult years, that she had distanced herself from her mother out of the apprehension of “not being her.”  Steinem expresses profound misgivings about her handling of the demise of both her parents.  Her father, who was mortally injured in a car accident in 1961, died alone.  Resisting the call to travel to California to be with him, Steinem feared being recast in the role of caretaker.   She was at her mother’s side during her last hours, yet confesses that in retrospect, “I so regret that I wasn’t more of a companion to her.”

Steinem’s 50th birthday was celebrated by a party attended by luminaries—or as Phil Donahue put it, “The revolution comes to the Waldorf.”  She saw the year as a definitive marker.  Yet, it was a diagnosis of breast cancer (she had a lump excised and was treated with radiation) that served the purpose of making her aware of the passage of time.

In the segment titled, “There was a period when the world was in black and white instead of color,” Steinem sorts out an interval when she dealt with depression.  Moving from “bottoming out,” she looked internally.  Burnt out from constant traveling and speaking gigs, the solitary din of a radio in her hotel room brought back the memories and unfinished business of her childhood—and the “neglected child” who felt “she didn’t exist.” With this realization, Steinem knew that she “couldn’t go forward in the old way.”  Her book on self-esteem, Revolution from Within, uses her own issues as an anchoring point.  She admits, “Even social activism can be a drug that keeps you from going back, as you keep trying to fill up an emptiness which can’t be filled by anything external.”

Married in 2000 to David Bale, it was a union of two partners who, understood that “love is not about power.”  Steinem affirms that for the first time since childhood, she felt “in the present.” Bale developed brain lymphoma in 2002, which lasted a year.  In considering what she learned from Bale’s illness and death, she recounts her appreciation for the chance to do-over her part as a caretaker—this time as an adult.  The exchange is another parallel of the younger Gloria and older Gloria—underscoring her psychological progression.

Why did Steinem evolve into a symbol of so much to so many?  It’s impossible to know.  She became a vessel through which some women discovered themselves, their potential, and the strength to advocate for their own truths.  For others, she will remain the scapegoat for the “downfall of our beautiful American family,” as an irate caller to Larry King pronounced.

©Annie Leibovitz, 2010/courtesy of HBO

On her own place in the feminist pantheon, Steinem tells audiences on college campuses, “Don’t listen to my advice.  Listen to the voice inside you and follow that.”  She is clear that being of a different generation, girls coming up now need to have their own feminist heroes.  In a self-effacing manner Steinem suggests, “The primary thing is not that they know who I am, but who they are.”

Her hope for the future is succinct—a time when being a feminist means you see the world whole instead of half.  “It shouldn’t need a name,” Steinem pronounces.  She adds, “One day it won’t.”

This piece was cross-posted from Marcia G. Yerman.

Sexual trafficking.  It’s hard for people to wrap their minds around the scope of the problem.  A new film, The Whistleblower, presents an on the ground retelling of the story of Kathryn Bolkovac (Rachel Weisz), a Nebraskan police officer who became part of the United Nations police team in post-war Bosnia.  Hired by a government contractor (named “Democra” in the movie) that recruited candidates, she uncovered a trafficking operation that reached to the highest echelons of power.

The movie is structured in a style reminiscent of the 1980s Costa-Gavras narratives.  The dramatization is based on actual events. Some characters have been merged, with names and timelines changed for the sake of a streamlined plot. One of the anchoring characters is Madeleine Rees (Vanessa Redgrave), who was the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Bosnia.

Shot in palettes of blues and browns, the facts are laid out as Bolkovac—who is of Croatian descent—takes her belief in “doing her job” into the field.  After ten years of experience on the domestic violence beat back home, Bolkovac finds herself up against a web of corrupt players ranging from local police and United Nations peacekeepers, to State Department brass and “Democra” bigwigs.

Bolkovac discovers that the area’s bars and clubs are serving as a front to sites where girls from the Ukraine, Russia, and Eastern Europe have been enslaved. Many of the girls being sold to an international clientele are between 12 and 15 years old.

The story’s trajectory follows Bolkovac (who served as a story consultant) from her discovery of trafficking corruption, complicity, and cover-ups through her efforts to report her findings—despite files of evidence disappearing and witness tampering. Death threats are the precursor to her being fired, when she gets too close to the truth.  The multilayered cover-up finally sees the light of day when she files a wrongful dismissal case against “Democra,” and feeds the information from her findings to the British press.

Director Larysa Kondracki spent time with her co-writer in Eastern Europe doing background research.  There are two key scenes that speak volumes.  One is revelatory, the other is searing.  In the former, Bokovac—and the audience—begin to understand the magnitude of what she is up against as she scrutinizes the first photos and bits of information she had pinned to her office wall.  The camera pulls back to show how the original findings have grown exponentially.  The latter is an indelible image of one of the girls being raped, tortured and killed in front of the others, as an example of why compliance is the only way to survive.

The Human Rights Watch Film Festival showcased the New York premiere of The Whistleblower in June. HRW has done extensive work documenting post-war abuse in the Balkans.  Their website article “Bosnia and Herzegovina: Traffickers Walk Free” gives an overview of the material covered in the movie.  In addition, they issued a report in 2002 that breaks down their findings into twelve comprehensive sections.

I interviewed Kondracki by e-mail to get additional insights about her vision and aspirations for the movie.  She explained that as a Ukrainian Canadian, the issue of sex trafficking was widely discussed within her community.  When she read Bolkovac’s book, The Whistleblower: Sex Trafficking, Military Contractors, and One Woman’s Fight for Justice, she was overwhelmed by the breadth of the crime of trafficking.  She was surprised that a film had not already been made.

What made you decide to do the movie as an indie film? Did you think it would give you more latitude to portray the story as you best saw fit?

To be honest, I didn’t see another way. We set out to do it. We spent some time in studios, which was a valuable experience and I think the script was improved when we were there. But ultimately, this was the way that made sense. That’s where I have to hand it to the producers. Once we got the project out, we were shooting within nine months.

Do you see the film reaching people about the issue of human trafficking in a way that a news story or article cannot?  Are you hoping that the “political thriller” tag will pull people in, which might otherwise be afraid of the subject matter?

Absolutely. Kathy’s story is practically a Robert Ludlum novel. Sex, scandal, corruption, governments, international cover-ups. It’s something you would usually make up. Our primary goal was to make a good thriller with a great character at the center. Is she going to get the girl? Are they going to get our heroine?

Was it Bolkovac’s experience with domestic violence in the United States, combined with how she got a conviction on her first time at bat in Bosnia, that made Madeleine Rees reach out to her?

Yes. That conviction made Kathy really stand out.

How did you decide how far to go with graphically showing the abuse and torture of the trafficked girls?

I wasn’t going to make this movie and not be realistic. But I also had no intention of deterring audiences. We tested it several times, and found the right balance. You don’t see anything. It’s not unlike Silence of the Lambs in a way. It’s what’s inferred.

How is the United Nations dealing with the film? I understand there was an internal memo that was circulated that advocated a “no comment” policy. Does that suggest that they haven’t learned anything from their experience about transparency?

The internal memo left it at the UN being split. But we have learned from sources that they are sticking with a “damage control” policy. I really have no idea what they’ve learned, and why they aren’t seizing the opportunity not only to right these wrongs, but in doing so, to gain some faith from so many cynics that are watching. Show us you want to be the organization you’re meant to be. I’ve written a letter to Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon, and we have offered to screen the film wherever and whenever they want. So far…No Comment.

cultureID specifically deals with connecting those doing cultural work with political and social intent/content with audiences.  How do you see The Whistleblower within this context?

I genuinely believe that films have one of the loudest voices. And I believe that if we can get this story into public discourse, the State Department and the United Nations will be embarrassed. Hopefully, enough to do something. Look at Guantanamo, extraordinary renditions…I’m not saying that’s done with, but at least they aren’t snatching people in plain sight out of airports anymore. Same thing here. U.S. tax dollars should not be going to the buying and selling of girls. Period. There’s no grey area to that.

The democratic spirit of the Arab Spring uprisings is alive and well in the determination of women protesters in Iraq, who are seeing their rights slip away under the current administration.

Although the focus of many media reports has been on Egypt’s Tahrir Square, there is another Tahrir Square that demands our attention—the one in Baghdad.  On June 10, members of the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq (OWFI) were attacked and sexually molested as they gathered there to make demands. Since February this year, OWFI members have been among demonstrators assembling in Tahrir Square every Friday—to demand that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki fulfill promises for democratic change and the delivery of fundamental services.

OWFI Director Yanar Mohammed was in New York City the following week for a panel at a conference on social change philanthropy. In an interview facilitated by OWFI partner Madre, I sat down with Mohammed to discuss the recent events.

Yanar Mohammed cofounded OWFI during the U.S. invasion of her country in 2003. In two rooms inside a burned out bank, she put a sign on the door proclaiming Women’s Freedom in Iraq. “One thing led to another,” she said, but from day one, the profile of the group reflected the philosophy that “anything military would not lead to a solution for the women of Iraq.”

In addition to setting up safe houses in 2004 to protect women from domestic abuse and honor killings, Mohammed fought sexual trafficking and advocated for women who were incarcerated. She runs a newspaper and a radio station under the banner name of Al Mousawat, which means “equality.”

Beyond providing services, Mohammed demands parity for women with the men of Iraq and promotes secular and human rights, earning her the antagonism of Islamic fundamentalists—who have threatened her life. She sees the power of these religious extremists as a direct result of the military occupation of Iraq. “The Americans did more harm than good,” she said.  “Under Saddam, women were educated.”  She pointed to how the occupation had left a vacuum for the rise of Islamists—who wrote a new constitution taking away women’s gains.  She noted, “In a religious group, there is not moderation.  You are not equal to men.”  Currently, Mohammed sees the popularity of the Shiite leadership waning.  “You can’t force democracy through a gun.”

Mohammed talked about Iraqi mothers who come to Tahrir Square dressed in traditional garb, holding pictures of their missing sons.  Beyond being poor, deprived, and desiring social change, they want to know where their children are. It is impossible to penetrate the many layers of security in Iraq, with detainees held in jail without due process as a result of “anti-terrorism” laws.

The weekly demonstrations this year keep pressure on Maliki following February 25, the “Day of Iraqi Anger,” when thousands of Iraqis defied a state curfew in Baghdad as part of what became the Arab Spring uprisings. Protestor grievances include the scarcity of electricity and water, as well as rampant corruption. Maliki set a deadline of 100 days for following through on his promises and guarantees.

Mohammed described the Friday gatherings as comprised of younger people in their twenties, mixed with working and college educated people—many unemployed.  “Women came unveiled,” she maintained, “because in the revolution, women are equal to men.”  In response to her presence, she said, “Men wanted to shake my hand.  They saw me as a symbol of change.”  She emphasized the importance of the female turnout. “Women are at the front of the fight.  Our experience with the Islamists for the past eight years have made us ready.”  Many of the women sheltered by OWFI received not only refuge but learned political empowerment as well.  However, the second Friday in June turned out to have a different narrative.

Mohammed related the incident from conversations she had with members of OWFI who witnessed the events. Early in the morning, charted air-conditioned buses brought huge numbers of men dressed in tribal clothes to Tahrir Square. They chanted their support for Maliki as the “sole leader of the nation.”  The women held signs with slogans that read: “Initiators of Revolution, Defeaters of Tyrants, Come to the Square of Change.”  They overheard some of the men saying, “These are the whores we are here to get.”  Another contingent of men dressed in athletic tracksuits began grabbing the signs and ripping them, using the wooden handles to hit the women.

One young male activist threw his body over a woman who was being kicked by eight men.  While women were being beaten, their bodies—breasts, thighs, buttocks, and genitals—were groped.  Mohammed was clear, “It was about humiliation and shame.”  One woman was in danger of being physically stripped, but was protected by male compatriots.  Mohammed said the thugs also wielded knives and pipes, and a person was threatened with a gun equipped with a silencer. OWFI had prepared to hold a press conference June 12 about the assaults, but the military and army intelligence blocked their street.

One of the most outspoken activists, a 28-year-old woman, went home to find her apartment turned upside down and her possessions destroyed.  There was no theft.  The point of the action was a warning. Mohammed said succinctly, “The women who were attacked need to be compensated by the government.  There should be a formal apology. The woman who had her apartment ransacked needs to be compensated as well.”

What would Mohammed like to tell President Obama? “The Maliki government is pushing women back from the political arena, once again, and the latest incident included sexual harassment and humiliation,” she answered. “If the American government wants to stop the Iraqi government from suppressing women, it will happen right away.”

Meanwhile, the women will be returning to the square.

The views expressed in this commentary are those of the author alone and do not represent WMC.  WMC is a 501(c)(3) organization and does not endorse candidates.

With the assassination of Salman Taseer, the Governor of Punjab Province in Pakistan and an outspoken opponent of religious extremism, the divisions within Pakistani society are once again in the news.  Perhaps there is no better time to see the documentary Bhutto, which not only tells the story of Pakistan’s first women Prime Minister, but also gives extensive background on this country’s history.

Out of an 111 minute running time, the first half-hour is devoted to the account of a nation that was birthed in bloodshed.  There is a full primer on Benazir Bhutto’s father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and the Pakistan People’s Party, which he founded on the platform of  “food, clothing, shelter.”  For Americans, who can be woefully ignorant of other nation’s narratives (even those we are seeking to engage in cooperation around the Afghanistan war), the lesson is welcome.

Pakistan, the sixth largest country in the world, has a population of 180 million people and is 97 percent Muslim. Approximately 60 percent of the citizens subsist on under $2 per day. There are 1,000 honor killings per year.  Since the death of Benazir Bhutto in 2007, there has been an average of three terrorist attacks each week.  The country has survived four military coups, and is in possession of 90 nuclear warheads.  After the 9/11 attacks, during the Bush administration, the United States funneled $15 billion in unchecked defense funds to Pakistan.  President Obama has since signed the Kerry-Lugar Bill, which provides $7.5 billion in civilian “non-military” aid to the people of Pakistan for health care, education, electricity, and infrastructure renewal.

Making an observation on the Bhutto family, which has frequently been referenced as the “Kennedys of Pakistan,” one of the film’s talking heads aptly states, “The whole story of the Bhuttos has the elements of a Greek tragedy.”  It is the interweaving of their personal history with that of Pakistan’s that creates the framework for the movie.

Bhutto was born in 1953.  Nobody came to visit her mother for three days; they were in mourning that she hadn’t given birth to a son.  She was given the first name Benazir, which means one-of-a-kind. Her father believed in equal rights for women.  When his daughter first donned the traditional burqa at age 13 he informed her mother, “There’s not a need for her to wear it.”  He saw education as being paramount, so Bhutto attended both Harvard and Oxford.  As the first democratically elected President of his country, Ali Bhutto groomed his daughter to carry on his political legacy.  This subtext of preference added to the ongoing struggles she had with brother Murtaza Bhutto.  They held distinctly different ideological and political points of view.  Later, this discord would extend to Bhutto’s husband, Asif Ali Zardari, and his role in the government.

While Bhutto was at university, she was exposed to the burgeoning women’s movement.  Her roommate at Harvard (interviewed in the film) was Kathleen Kennedy.  Bhutto learned how to straddle both the worlds of tradition and liberation.  Believing that she was on “a holy mission to bring democracy to her country,” she understood that in order to co-exist with the religious factions—and gain their support, she needed to abide by certain strictures of Pakistani society.  At the age of 34, she accepted an arranged marriage to Ali Zardari.  He was a Karachi businessman chosen by her mother, with no ties to the Pakistani intelligentsia. However, Bhutto said, “My mother picked him, but I fell in love with him as if I saw him across a crowded room.”  Despite these concessions, she believed that she had changed how Islamic men—and Islamic society—viewed Islamic women.  She wanted to show by example that “a woman could be as good as a man.”

Bhutto’s world was turned upside down when her father, then serving as Prime Minister, was overthrown in a military coup by his handpicked Chief of Army Staff, Gen. Mohammed Zia ul-Haq.  He was imprisoned for two years on charges of “conspiring to murder a political opponent.”  Bhutto was then 26.  It was the vigil for her father in prison that Bhutto credits as the training ground for her political career.  For two months before her father’s execution, when Zia had outlawed the speaking or printing of the “Bhutto” name, she and her mother were under house arrest.

Beginning in 1981, the next two decades included extreme highs and lows in Bhutto’s life.  After her two brothers were linked to the hijacking of a Pakistani airplane, she and her mother were included in a round up of political dissidents.  She spent months in solitary confinement before being transferred to house arrest.  She left the country in 1984.  The following year, her younger brother Shahnawaz Bhutto died in France, under mysterious circumstances. The family maintained that he had been poisoned.

In 1985, Bhutto returned to Pakistan to take up leadership of her father’s political party.  Eight months later, she persevered in calling for new elections, with the agenda of “bringing change to Pakistan through non-violent means.”  In December of 1988, at age 35, she was sworn into office as Prime Minister.  She took her oath using a Koran, to “debunk myths on the Jihadist views of Islam.”  She said, “I have avenged my father today.”

After twenty months in office, President Ghulam Ishaq Khan dismissed Bhutto’s government on the grounds of alleged corruption. Bhutto blamed the military. Continued jockeying for political power resulted in the People’s Pakistan Party recapturing a majority of seats in Parliament. In 1993, Bhutto regained the prime ministership. Her government was dismissed in 1996 by President Farooq Leghari, for corruption and “disregarding the constitutional limits on executive power.”  She was placed under house arrest. Her husband, who had served as investment and environment minister (and was derogatorily referred to by opponents as, “Mr. 10%”), was taken to prison. He was incarcerated for eleven years and released in 2004—without having been convicted of a crime.  Of that period she reflected, “We were in office, not in power.”

In 1996, Murtaza Bhutto was shot and killed in a gun battle with Karachi police. Her niece, Fatima Bhutto, is a vocal on-screen critic.  She explicitly states that her aunt “bears a moral responsibility” for her father’s murder.  Her unequivocal cynicism about Bhutto’s goals and actions were made clear in a Los Angeles Times article on November 14th, 2007, concurrent with her aunt’s return to Pakistan.

In exile and living in London, in 1999 Bhutto was sentenced to five years in prison on charges of corruption and barred from holding political office.  She denied the accusations.  Her children, speaking wistfully, said that while they lived in exile they spent more time with their mother than when she was in office.

An American-brokered deal with Gen. Perev Musharraf granted amnesty for Bhutto in October 2007.  All corruption charges were withdrawn.  Musharraf ran for President and Bhutto went back to Pakistan for the parliamentary elections.  Her message was that military rule was not the solution and that “she and democracy were a better choice.”  Knowing of the impending danger that faced her when she returned to Pakistan, Bhutto sent an e-mail to her long-time American advisor Mark Siegel, noting that Musharraf would be to blame if any harm befell her.

While participating as the leading opposition candidate in a political rally in Rawalpindi, she was killed in a suicide bomb attack and shooting.  In 2008, Musharraf resigned to avoid impeachment.  Bhutto’s husband was elected President of Pakistan the same year.  In 2009, he asked the United Nations to conduct an independent inquiry into his wife’s death.  On April 10, 2010, the results concluded that Musharraf’s government bore responsibility for her murder by “repeatedly rejecting basic security measures and intentionally destroying critical evidence.”

Interested in getting back-story on the film, I contacted Duane Baughman, the Producer/Director. Speaking the day after the San Francisco premiere of Bhutto, he discussed the genesis of his film that had taken three years and $3 million of his own money to bring to fruition.

Baughman related his first awareness of Bhutto on the international stage in the 1980s, when he was immersed in political science. He said, “I was riveted by this woman who appeared to be straight out of Central Casting.”  Twenty-two years later, he found his work in the political sphere bringing him into impending contact with Bhutto, when Mark Siegel included him in a group of potential consultants for Bhutto to meet.  The introduction never took place.  After the assassination, Baughman felt strongly that Bhutto’s story needed to be told—particularly by a person who had a pronounced political understanding and could handle the overview of “an extremely complicated story.”  Siegel became the facilitator and conduit to the Bhutto family, as well as the producer on the movie.

Part of Baughman’s vision for the documentary was his commitment intertwined” with America’s future.  He said emphatically, “If Pakistan succeeds, the United States succeeds.”

Commenting on the relationship between father and daughter, Baughman spoke about how in Ali Bhutto’s last year, Benazir Bhutto was his lifeline.  In turn, he was her “professor and tutor.”  Baughman quoted from Ali Bhutto’s A Letter from the Death Cell where he wrote of his daughter’s evolution: “She has the blood of warriors running in her veins.”

I asked Baughman what his take-away on Benazir Bhutto was.  He responded by e-mail, “She was the first woman in the world to rise up and lead a Muslim nation, and she gave her life for her country. The level of admiration and curiosity I have for her is wrapped up in this film. Like her or hate her, admire her or abhor her, she was a barrier breaker whose personal and family legacy is forever linked with Pakistan— and Pakistan is linked with America and the West. That makes her story one we should all be more aware of.”

When it was announced that the TED enterprise—which features global conferences with idea innovators and change agents—was gearing up to present a TEDwomen conference, there was immediate push back.  Reactions included, “Why are women being siloed? Why not more diversity and gender parity in the TED conferences that are being held?  Is this marginalization?”  There were a lot of question marks.

The conveners took these responses into account when they put together the handsome program booklet titled, “Looking At Women’s Ideas in 2010 is  ___________.”  The adjective was left open.  Getting a jump on the controversy, they asked rhetorically, “How can we be discussing this? How can we be ignoring this?  The real differences between men’s and women’s lives.” With a sense of humor, and a measure of deflection, they suggested on opposite pages: “This is a good start; This is a good way to start a fight.”

Chris Anderson, curator of the TED conferences, and co-hosts Pat Mitchell and June Cohen tackled the topic with a group of attending reporters.  Anderson was emphatic in his declaration, “I couldn’t be more excited about the event.  I think it’s fantastic.  It has all the vibrancy of any TED conference.”  He added that it was his belief that “not too long in the future, the gender lense will go.”  When pressed on whether there would be succeeding TEDwomen events he replied, “This was always planned as a one-off.”  On complaints about the ratio of women speakers at TED he said, “We’re trying to do a better job of integrating women into regular TED programs.” He offered that TEDwomen was “our way of making a quantum leap forward.”  He underscored that in curating any TED, “The goal is always to find the best speakers for a theme.”  His direct comment on, “Why TEDwomen?” was a clear, “Because Pat Mitchell is a force of nature.”

I ran into Dina Kaplan, co-founder of blip-tv early on Tuesday.  She told me, “It was wonderful to be part of the group Pat Mitchell gathered earlier this year, when the idea for a women-focused TED was born.  I don’t see this [conference] as exclusionary.  Women should be a big part of TED, Davos, DLD and other premier events, but it’s okay for us to hole up and speak amongst each other, sharing stories and ideas a few times a year, too. It’s empowering to be surrounded by ambitious, thoughtful women—especially if you’re accustomed to working with men for much of your workday.”

Even Hillary Clinton, a surprise guest speaker, took a shot at the topic during her stint at the podium.  “Why a TEDwomen conference?” she asked.  “To focus on women as agents of change.  Where girls and women flourish, there is success for the world.  It a tenant of our national policy.”

Using the language of music to create the framework and structure for the two days, sessions were broken down into: Overtures, Life’s Symphony, Composers, Duets, Harmony and Discord, and Crescendo.  In an event of this scope, I wasn’t surprised to overhear a comment that raved about a presentation—which moments before someone else had pronounced as “unengaging.”  For me, there were plenty of new faces, equally dynamic as well-known participants Madeleine Albright and Nancy Pelosi.

Journalist Mona Eltahawy grabbed the audience’s attention with her opening line, “I’m Muslim, I’m a feminist, and I’m here to confuse you.  It’s not just about headscarves and hymens.” Deborah Rhodes, on the medical front, spoke about the work she has been doing with Molecular Breast Imaging (MBI). Currently FDA approved, the technology is breaking ground in finding small tumors in dense breast tissue.

Tony Porter’s persona and delivery was dynamic. He spoke about his “call to men” to break out of the “man-box.” He related the story of his own path of awakening, from a teenager assuming the macho pose expected of him—to his evolving awareness as a parent.  Pointing out that men’s violence against women is at an all-time high, he exclaimed, “My liberation as a man is tied to your liberation as a woman.”

Naomi Klein also dealt with the relationship to the environment in her talk, “On Precaution.”  Monitoring the BP oil disaster in the Gulf, she spent a week on a research vessel with a scientific team from the University of South Florida. Their investigation found that water with even trace amounts of oil and dispersants could be highly toxic to the microorganism phytoplankton—essential to the marine food web.  Klein assailed a mind-set she named the “techno-fix”—the concept that technology will save us.  She raised the red flag on how we get ourselves into
untenable situations.  “Why are we using cost/analysis as a yardstick?” she asked.  Why are we putting our foot on the accelerator when we should be putting it on the brakes?”  For Klein, the reasons are based on a false sense of security.  She also noted that those on the right had recast these concerns as “a culture issue and a threat to our way of life.”  Speaking later with reporters she said, “This isn’t a fight about the science.  Yes, climate change forces us to accept limits, [like] giving up SUVs and and redistributing the wealth.”  Discussing the effects of our consumption on the planet, Klein underscored, “This [BP oil spill] was a transformative moment.  What has this disaster changed?  People in their own communities are ready to push back and use the precautionary concept.”

During Tuesday night’s welcome dinner, there was a “bonus session” with a lineup that included Madame Callista Mutharika and Sia Nyama Koroma, the first ladies of Malawi and Sierra Leone, respectively.  They outlined the work they are doing to improve the lives of women in their countries.  Clean water, education, healthcare, and maternal mortality are top concerns.  In Malawi, one in eight women die in childbirth.

For me, the most powerful voice of the evening was Malaya Pinas from the Philippines, an on-the-ground writer getting her work out through the World Pulse “Voices of our Future “ program.  Her message to the gathering about the women of her country was, “We are not servants of the world.  We are not your domestic workers or your mail-order brides.  We are not little brown fucking machines to be used by United States serviceman. We are servants of peace and freedom.  When our whispers become a trumpet, we will become a power for change.”

The following day showcased those making statements in the cultural arena.  Palestinian-American poet, playwright, and political activist, Suheir Hammad read one of her works, “What I Will.”  Shirin Neshat, the Iranian-born artist who works in photography, video, and film, spoke about her directorial debut, Women Without Men, which she described as a film “balanced between the political and the feminist.”

In the closing session, Johanna Blakley persuasively articulated about social media as the “end of assumptions about gender.”  She posited that women were driving the social media revolution, declaring, “They dominate the space.”  Blakely offered that social media “allows us to escape our demographics.”  She explained, “When you look online at the way people aggregate and organize, it’s not around age.  It’s around interests.”

Listening to diplomat and humanitarian Stephen Lewis speak  was an eye-opener.  He gave his talk with a no-nonsense attitude and a brutal frankness about the United Nations’ dismal record on gender parity.  His take-no-prisoners manner highlighted that women were second-class citizens in that world body.

Pat Mitchell introduced the closer with the line, “Who would want to be the final speaker?
Someone very, very, brave.”  That person was Eve Ensler.  She wrapped up the two days with passion and energy.  Not surprising.  The playwright/activist and founder of V-Day, which has raised $75 million to end violence against women and girls, is a vibrant orator. She verbalized how her disconnect from her body was due to violence in her background. When she connected with her vagina, she was driven.  In coming to terms with her uterine cancer (she is now nine months cancer free), she saw it as, “The cancer that is everywhere from the carelessness.”  Through what came to be her realizations, she was able to draw analogies between her body and the earth. She said, “I know that everything is connected.”

There were numerous personal stories interwoven through the talks that dealt with overcoming obstacles and fighting tirelessly for social change.  The most visceral image that will stay with me as a metaphor for determination came from a video excerpt presented by the conservationists and filmmaking team of Beverly and Dereck Joubert. They presented a difficult to watch clip of an elephant being attacked by a pack of lions.  The footage showed the elephant’s hide being torn as one lion attacked its flank and another jumped onto its back, sinking in its teeth and claws.  The elephant went down, unable to fight back.  It appeared defeated.  Yet as definitively as it capitulated to the force of the lions, it then miraculously rallied to stand up and shake itself loose from the predators.

It was a reminder that as difficult and overwhelming challenges can be, either personal or global, there is always the possibility for triumph and hope.

Photos: #2: Penelope J. Chaffer & Tyrone Hayes; #3: Naomi Klein; #4: Malaya Pinas; #5: Even Ensler; taken by James Duncan Davidson/TED

As part of a move to create a space for an “exchange of dialogue,” Patricia Duff founded the organization The Common Good.  Her goal is to make sure that people are willing to keep an open ear and have conversations that “aren’t limited to sound bites.”  The group has been the force behind numerous events.  They recently hosted a preview screening of the documentary Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer.  Duff told me that she had been a Spitzer supporter. “I think he did a lot of good work as Attorney General. This film is fodder for starting a discussion.”  A question and answer forum with director Alex Gibney was part of the evening.

Having written numerous articles about the Eliot Spitzer saga, its intersection with prostitution and human trafficking, and his reemergence in the public eye—from speaking appearances to a co-host position on the CNN nightly line up—I was interested in learning what the film would have to offer.

Gibney’s account is a story with a motley cast of characters that only a screenwriter could dream up. It is a political intrigue tale, missing only a definitive “Deep Throat” anchor. Perhaps the closest element to that is the actress who portrays “Angelina,” the primary woman that Spitzer had assignations with.  (Despite her protracted presence in the public eye, Ashley Dupre had only one meeting with Spitzer.)

Spitzer is interviewed seated on a sofa, in comfortable and elegant surroundings.  On topics related to Wall Street and the Governorship, he is extremely verbal and forthcoming.  On matters requiring introspection, he is less articulate.  We do learn about how he was raised by a father who translates as more forbidding than loving.  His top lesson for his son was, “Don’t trust anyone.”

With references to Greek mythology (think hubris and exalted mortals with clay feet) the film intones, “No one expected him to go down like he did.”  As the “Sheriff of Wall Street” whose mantra was “attack, attack, attack,” Spitzer’s premise was that Wall Street couldn’t be left to police itself.  Spitzer saw himself as the people’s attorney, fighting to change a system through the law—which had turned a blind eye to white-collar crime.

Self-identifying as “a fucking steamroller,” Spitzer racked up an array of enemies.  They included Joe Bruno, the former Republican Majority leader of the New York State Senate; Maurice R. Greenberg, the former chairman of A.I.G.; and former director of the NY Stock Exchange, Kenneth G. Langone.  Eager to weigh in on the chain of events is Roger Stone, a flamboyant Republican political consultant, who delivers his insights with the nighttime Manhattan skyline as a backdrop.

On the dichotomy between Spitzer’s actions and the fact that as governor he worked to pass The Human Trafficking Law (June 6, 2007), little about this conundrum is addressed.  There is a brief clip showing prominent anti-trafficking activists witnessing the bill being signed by Spitzer. Yet, more time is devoted to an interview with a sex worker involved in the “high-end” of the prostitution continuum who states flatly that women in this well-paying line of work are not abused victims.  Rather, they like the checkbook net-gains.  Gabney also includes a visual montage of other politicians whose reputations have been affected by “sex scandals.”

As for Spitzer’s explanation of his behavior, he likens himself to Icarus, describing his activities as a release that was “easier than a relationship.”  Others suggest that Spitzer didn’t understand his own behavior.  On days when his severe political and personal style would be out of control, his staffers would wearily suggest that his evil twin “Irwin” had shown up.

When taking questions from the audience about whether the coverage of the Spitzer imbroglio was “skewed,” Gibney said, “There was salacious excitement that the ‘Sheriff of Wall Street’ was part of this escort service.”  He underscored that “other details weren’t looked at,” and suggested, “Federal investigators don’t get interested in this stuff [escort services].”  What was the purpose of the investigation? Was there corruption in the Justice Department? Did United States attorney Michael Garcia abuse his power?  These were the questions that Gibney was targeting.  He explained, “The film is dark.  It asks all of us to examine how we judge public officials.”

The movie consistently points to Spitzer’s knowledge about the inner workings of Wall Street, his understanding of the economy in terms of TARP and subprime mortgages, and his prescience about the Wall Street meltdown.  After the Q & A,   I approached Gibney to ask him if he had reached out to anyone in the anti-trafficking community for their thoughts on the Spitzer situation, particularly as they had viewed Spitzer as an ally who understood their issues.  His answer was, “No.”  Gibney in turn asked me if I equated the Emperor’s Club V.I.P. with the sexual trafficking of children.  He related the fact that he had interviewed people in the “high end of the escort trade who didn’t feel in need of protecting.”  That singular point of view was represented in the documentary, with no parallel mention of the debate about the demand for paid sex, or whether it is acceptable to purchase another human being.

About the story line he had shaped, Gibney said, “I want people to come to their own conclusions.” Client 9 delves into an interesting set of circumstances.  However, it is not built upon the questions that I brought to the film.

In the end, I would have to agree with Spitzer’s reason for his “rise and fall.”  As he says without emotional affect, “There’s all sorts of rumors about bringing me down.  My view is I brought myself down.”

This article originally appeared on the website mgyerman.com

Who gets to decide what the narrative for women in politics really is?  Is it the female candidates who choose to run?  The media that interprets them to the public? The platforms they align themselves with?

Currently, women comprise only 17 percent of Congress.  Women of color are completely missing in the Senate, and make up only 5 percent of the House of Representatives.  Oft-repeated stats show that when the ratio of women in national legislatures is examined, the United States places 71st out of 189 countries.  Even Cuba and Pakistan surpasses us in the rankings.

Headlines emerged declaring 2010 the year of the Republican women (although many appeared to fall under Tea Party jurisdiction). In my efforts to comprehend the competing story lines about this new breed of woman politician on the scene, I was getting a cacophony of competing arguments in my head.

A revolving loop with a series of questions kept playing.  Is gender trumped by ideology? What is the subtext when two women candidates face off against each other? Why does the “Mama Grizzly” phenomenon, and right-wing women candidates staking a claim to the feminist legacy, leave me both incredulous and aggravated?  Since Christine O’Donnell, Michele Bachmann, and Sharron Angle oppose abortion in the case of rape and incest, do their supporters follow them down that road?  Every time Christine O’Donnell says something laughable, is it any more absurd than the candidacy of Alvin Greene?  Why do corporate titans who have turned their sights on elected office—such as Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, and Linda McMahon—embody the style of leadership that emanates from a traditional male model, and what do they bring to the party?  And finally, what’s with women using the “man-up” taunt? Is that any better than telling a woman in a debate to “act like a lady?”

I kept asking myself, “What makes women good leaders, regardless of their philosophy?”  I pulled out my copy of Secrets of Powerful Women: Leading Change for a New Generation.  The book, released earlier in the year, evolved from conversations that were part of the Lifetime “Every Woman Counts Campaign,” which encouraged women to run for office and be active in the political process.  I checked all the pages with the turned-down corners to see if any addressed the uncertainties that were gnawing at me.  I got more confused. Advice ranged from “Don’t be oversensitive” and “Be tough” to “Wield power like a woman”—referencing different life experiences for women that create “greater empathy.”  Susan Bevan, co-chairwoman of the Republican Majority for Choice, wrote about “protecting individual autonomy” and why “a woman’s right to control her reproductive health is absolutely central to our success as a civilization.”  Susan Wolf Turnbull, Former Vice Chair of the DNC, related, “The scrutiny of women’s clothing choices in politics is ridiculous.  There’s a double standard in the ways men and women are judged on appearance.”  Repeatedly mentioned was the “unique perspective that women bring to government.”  Rep. Shelly Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), said that “good policy depends on input from a wide variety of views and perspectives.” Madeleine Kunin, the first woman governor of Vermont, advised finding your own voice and seeking power to empower others.  She also emphasized why women needed to be in charge…because of their unique understanding of families and women’s lives.

I called Lisa Maatz (also featured in the book), Public Policy & Government Relations Director at AAUW. She walked me through a few basics.  Regarding those women I find so alienating, she suggested that stylistically—in order for women politicians to get noticed in their caucuses and move their agenda forward—some research reveals that women who break the glass ceiling utilize more traditionally masculine strategies. That’s what gets rewarded. “Typically, more women in politics lends itself to a more rational conversation,” Maatz said. Yet with all the hyper-partisan histrionics, and as Maatz underscored, “women in the political middle are getting edged out,” I was having trouble seeing evidence of evenhanded dialogue.  We parsed the “who has a right to call themselves a feminist” issue.  Maatz posited that “the goals of feminism were to create social, political and economic independence—allowing women to take full advantage of life opportunities and to express independent opinions and decisions.”

On the topic of choice, Maatz explained that one of the successes of the women’s movement is that “it has created opportunities for women and allowed them to judge, compare, and contrast women candidates in a way that is less dependent on gender.” However, she noted that there are still “crazy amounts of sexism” out on the campaign trail.  Regarding my O’Donnell vs. Greene question, Maatz saw reaction to O’Donnell as having “gender based undertones,” whereas in the case of Greene, there was “a general dismissal—with racist undertones.”  On a positive note, she assured me that “women can self-define and move forward.”

I was still feeling badly.  Elected women remain in the minority and we need more women in office.  But if they are using tactics and rhetoric that are unconstructive, where’s the benefit?I checked in with Sam Bennett, President and CEO of Women’s Campaign Forum and former Congressional candidate.  The WCF is a partner in the “Name It. Change It.” action to fight sexism in the media coverage of women candidates. “What we’re seeing are consequences of the conservative wing of the Republican party making abortion a wedge issue,” she told me.  “Back in the 70s, scores of Republican candidates that WCF supported were advocates of choice for women.  In the Senate, that number has dwindled to two women, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. Like Maatz, Bennett acknowledged traditional Republican women getting squeezed out by far more conservative candidates.  The only Republican women who are surviving electorally are the ones "that embrace the platform of right wing men.”

Bennett sees the solution as “oceans of women who support reproductive choices and options of both parties. The WCF endorses women standing up and running for office because women legislate differently than men.  They bring something to the table that men don’t.”  She added,  “But if I have to, I’ll even take a take a conservative woman over a conservative guy”—because part of the problem is that men are making all the decisions. Men don’t get pregnant—women do, even conservative women."

I hit pay dirt speaking with Susan J. Carroll, Senior Scholar at the Rutgers Center for American Women and Politics.  She was able to nail the “Mama Grizzly” and “Man-Up” issues for me with succinct explanations.  “The Mama Grizzly thing is fascinating,” she said.  “It’s extremely effective politics in a very masculine space.  It’s tough for women to be both masculine and feminine.  It works for these Republican women, because it combines motherhood with the masculine.”  Okay, I see the visual iconography…the ultra-femme woman protecting her young and defending home and hearth.  She continued, “They cast themselves in a conventional, traditional kind of way.  It’s a creative, effective image.”  On adding the term “man-up” to the campaign jargon, Carroll elucidated, “You’re dealing with a masculine space, so it’s a way of telling your opponent, ‘You don’t fit in this space.’  It’s intentionally a gender thing. ‘I’m a woman, but I’m more masculine than you are.’  The job is defined as masculine, so it’s interesting strategically.  They position themselves as stronger for the job than their opponents, using gender to do that.”  Carroll expressed recognition of continued sexism articulating, “There’s been a lot of that, and it operates against all women.”

More angst.  I went back to the original notes I had taken when I first read Secrets of Powerful Women.  I had gotten a quote from Kunin which contended, “Many women run for office because they are attracted by the issues, such as improving education or protecting the environment. They tend to be less ideological and more practical than men and are more comfortable with crossing party lines… If there were more elected women in the United States Senate today, I believe there would be less gridlock and more action."

I also had an e-mail note from Michelle Bernard, political analyst and the President and CEO of the Independent Women’s Forum.  Her insights echoed some of what her colleagues had suggested, amended by a strong dose of pragmatism.  She wrote:

“Women absolutely can work across partisan and ideological lines to seek solutions that work best for people.  In fact, women who tend to be better listeners and more open to compromise and finding areas of common ground, may be better suited to this task than most men.  That said, it is critical that we recognize that there are real differences of opinion among women.  Some women firmly believe in the ability of government to do good, while others just as firmly and passionately believe that government tends to cause more problems than it solves and want government to leave their families alone.  We shouldn’t fool ourselves that just because two policymakers are women that they are immediately going to agree about a matter of policy. The 2008 presidential election demonstrated quite clearly that women are not a monolithic voting bloc.  Under one tent, we now hear the voices of both big and small government women voters and policymakers. ”

In March of 2008—Women’s History Month—I attended a press conference given by a women’s NGO promoting the premise that the skills of leadership can be mentored and passed on to women, in order to effect change in their communities. This was over a year before the Kristoff-WuDunn book, Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women came on the scene. This organization was working to mentor women with management and business skills, in order to develop their enterprises. They also zeroed in on the stats that showed micro-lending to women leads to their reinvesting of profits into their families, villages, and districts.

One of the speakers, also a member of the Board of Directors, was Carly Fiorina. By this time, she had served at Lucent Technologies. (Her tenure there is examined by Scott Woolley in an 10/15/2010 article for Fortune entitled, “Carly Fiorina’s troubling telecom past.”) She had completed her run as the CEO of Hewlett-Packard (1999-2005), a period when she was considered one of the most powerful women in business. Her accolades included making the Forbes list of the thirty most powerful women in America (2001) and the description as the “first woman” to lead a Fortune 20 company. After she resigned and wrote her book, Tough Choices, Fiorina picked up a stream of speaking engagements. She appeared at a 2006 women’s business conference where I was present, offered as a role model for women in business. There was a subtext implying that sexism can sabotage women when they get up into the ranks and play with the big boys.

At the in 2008 event, she was billed as the CEO of Carly Fiorina Enterprises. Her presentation included a lot of business jargon, mixed in with information about how creating opportunities for those in need would help create a market for “us.” She referred to it euphemistically as “enlightened self-interest.” For those who may not have caught the core of what she was suggesting, she reaffirmed that helping women become self-empowered was beneficial because, “It’s good for us.” “Us” cut a wide swath, which I construed to include the West, the United States, and American business. 

Shorty afterwards, she signed on as the “economic spokesperson” for the John McCain campaign. When I would see her appearing on news shows as a talking head, I would recall that day. Her repeated gaffes took center stage, from her suggestion that neither John McCain nor Sarah Palin had the smarts to be a CEO of a major corporation—to the bag of worms addressing health insurance coverage that pitted Viagra vs. birth control pills. By 2009, Condé Nast Portfolio had listed Fiorina as one of “the 20 Worst American CEOs of All Time.” Now, having won the California Republican Senatorial primary—with the help of $5.5 million of her own money—Fiorina has positioned herself as the one to straighten out California’s fiscal problems. Some people are looking at her past performances, as well as her currently held opinions, for what type of Senator she would be.

As the CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Fiorina laid off 30,000 people. When she left the company, she received $21 million in severance pay. She opposes Net Neutrality, a woman’s right to choose, and same-sex marriages. She supports the death penalty and the Arizona immigration law.

When Californians focus in on the election, just sixteen* days away, they will need to parse out who Carly Fiorina is and what she stands for.  As someone who ascribes to the philosophy of doing “what’s good for us,” it’s important for the state’s voters to determine if they would fall into her category of “us”—or “them.”

*at the time of initial publication

Image © Courtesy of Carly for California, Inc.

With charitable organizations struggling for donors in the current economic climate, a just released October report from the Women’s Philanthropy Institute highlights a giving sector that may be getting short shrift.

The new study, Women Give 2010, is the first of its kind to compare philanthropic giving “between men and women across all income levels based on a nationally representative sample.”  Unique in its approach, Women Give 2010 drilled down exclusively on single heads of households “in order to examine gender differences.” The data used came from COPPS, a research project that “aims to follow the same families’ philanthropic behaviors throughout their lives.”  In order to allow “direct comparisons” between the philanthropic conduct of men and women, researcher“ controlled for factors” that influenced charitable giving—which included education, race, income, and age.  The data for the study was compiled from 2007, the year preceding the recession.

Specifically, the methodology brought to light findings through a categorization of two sub-groups. They were based on marital status and five divisions of income.  The approach eschewed only looking at the giving habits of affluent women.

The analysis is the first of an annual series of reports the Women’s Philanthropy Institute plans to release on women and philanthropy.  Future studies are slated to look at giving in terms of age, race, and areas of donor interest.

A focus of assessment was how shifts in the culture, and women’s evolving economic status, have impacted charitable giving.

Currently, the American labor force is comprised of 59.9 percent women.  The amount of
women who are working and who have college degrees has almost tripled in the time span from 1970 to 2008.  The numbers on marital status have changed dramatically as well.  In 2009, the number of unmarried and single Americans comprised 43 percent of the population 18 and over.  53 percent of that group was women.

I spoke with the Director of the Women’s Philanthropy Institute, Debra J. Mesch, Ph.D., to get her insights on what she perceived to be the major messages of the findings. She saw several narratives.  The first was that women give both “the big bucks” and at smaller levels.  Most importantly, she regarded the report as “empowering all women to understand that they can make a difference”—regardless of the amounts that they give.

Looking beyond the facts and figures, Mesch explained, “Women pick their charities in terms of their involvement and passion for the organization.  There is also a high relationship between those who volunteer for organizations, and the organizations that they give to.  Women need to feel some involvement in their altruism.  They need to be connected.  Men are more likely to just write checks.”  She underscored the different “patterns and motivations” between men and women in their giving.  She said, “Women are great equalizers. They want to be fair to everyone.”

Mesch emphasized, “It’s the first study that I know of that shows a strong consistency in the data pointing out that women are outperforming men, in terms of whether they give—as well as the amounts.”  She also noted that women were becoming more strategic in their philanthropy, as evidenced in the springing up of giving circles and the use of social media.

I contacted Taina Bien-Aimé, Executive Director of Equality Now, an international organization that works for the protection of the rights of women. When we discussed the pattern of giving among her donors, her comments fell in line with Mesch’s suppositions about the psychology of women’s giving.  “90 percent of our donors are women,” Bien-Aimé told me.  “They seem to be more interested in women’s rights. They understand that equality is essential for the future of the planet.”  When I shared some of the findings with Bien-Aimé she responded, “It confirms our experience.  Dedicated women with no income will send you five dollars.  The issues speak to them, and that moves women to give.”

Do non-profits seeking dollars need to recalibrate the way they look at women as a source of support and revenue?  Dana Kuznetzkoff, a film and television producer in New York City, thinks so.  She has been the single head of her own household since she graduated from college.  “Women donors are undervalued, she said.  I can’t tell you how many times I have received a thank you note for a donation addressed to Mr. Kuznetzkoff.”  She has a group of organizations that she supports which includes the Southern Poverty Law Center and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society.  Kuznetzkoff is actively involved with Bpeace, a network of business professionals who volunteer skills to entrepreneurs in “conflict-affected countries.”  The goal is to help create significant employment and expand the economic power of women.  She is excited by the prospect of giving not just her money, but the use of her talents as well.  On the results of Bpeace’s efforts Kuznetzkoff said, “I’ve never seen anything like it before.  Hundred of women in war-torn regions receive pro bono consulting, which enables them to employ over 1500 workers—which then impacts over 10,000 family members!”  Her enthusiasm has been a catalyst for her to reach out to her personal community and spread the word. She related that she taps her network of women more than men because, “Women are more sympathetic.  Men are looking for that big fish.  Women can relate more to the grassroots appeal where your dollars are going directly to a program, and not to an organizational structure.”  She added, “Women are tired of death and destruction of families, whether it is South Central Los Angeles or Afghanistan.”

Beyond the report’s findings is Mesch’s hope that the documentation will make a tangible impression on women.  She concluded our conversation with a remark expressing her wish that the study would help women to see where they fit into the philanthropic landscape, so they understand, “I can make a change in the world.”

Images: Courtesy of the Women’s Philanthropy Institute

Above: Marital Status Graph (chart 1) and Income Level Graph (chart 2)